James Marshall v The Commissioners for HMRC

Decision date: 21 October 2025

Neutral citation: [2025] UKFTT 1256 (TC)

Overall AI summary confidence: high

AI Notice: Any short overview, ratio decidendi summary or obiter dicta summary shown on this page is AI-generated, provided only to help users assess potential relevance more quickly, and may be wholly inaccurate. No liability is accepted for the accuracy of any such summary, regardless of any AI confidence rating shown. Users should check the underlying decision and obtain appropriate legal advice rather than relying on any summary.

Short overview

This short overview is intended to summarise the case, issues and outcome so far as they are supported by the judgment.

AI confidence in this short overview: high

This appeal concerned a £300 penalty imposed under Schedule 36 for failure to comply with an HMRC information notice dated 14 November 2023. The Tribunal proceeded in the appellant James Marshall's absence, accepted a slightly late appeal, found the notice validly served at his last known address despite being addressed also to a trading style/other names, and rejected Mr Marshall's claim that returning unopened mail was a reasonable excuse. The penalty was upheld.

Ratio decidendi

This summary is intended to identify the ratio decidendi, meaning the legal reasons for deciding and the binding part of the decision.

AI confidence in this ratio decidendi summary: medium

The Tribunal held that service of an information notice by post to a taxpayer's last known address satisfies statutory service requirements; a notice remains properly addressed where the taxpayer's name appears on the address panel even if other names or a trading style are also shown; and returning correspondence unopened where the recipient is named on the letters does not, on the facts of this case, constitute a reasonable excuse for non-compliance with an information notice.

Obiter dicta

This summary is intended to identify obiter dicta, meaning observations made by the way that were not necessary to deciding the case and are not binding.

AI confidence in this obiter dicta summary: medium

The Tribunal observed that in different factual circumstances—for example where a letter is addressed to an unrelated company or third party with no connection to the recipient—returning it unopened might be a reasonable act; and cautioned that allowing taxpayers to ignore clearly addressed HMRC correspondence would enable wilful avoidance.